Decentralizing Technological Solutions
Instead of thinking of technology as the answer, we should be thinking of it as the question
Technology has always been used to solve problems that humans face. We’ve seen technology automate many of our redundant processes, make connecting with people easier, and even build whole companies and teams that are lightyears more productive.
Tech brings a lot of value to our society, however, it’s a double-edged sword. Tech often perpetuates systems of inequality that further oppress already marginalized communities. Is technology the solution, despite its tendency to magnify existing inequities? What happens then, when the technology is too mainstream, making it impossible to escape those inequalities?
The Power of Facebook
In the 2000s, early social media like Myspace set the stage for a social media take over by Facebook. They came up gradually and learned from the issues people expressed about their competition. They built a solution that revolutionized how we communicate. The technology was accessible, making for easy adoption by most.
Technology is innovation, and many times we’re creating products of which we don’t know the consequences yet. It’s hard to gauge how they affect people, especially when the product is growing so quickly.
As Facebook’s users grew, so did their power and influence. The Pew Research Center reported that, in 2018, “43% of U.S adults got their news from Facebook alone.” That’s not necessarily a bad thing if these were all reputable sources. But what about “fake news”?
In a study done by NYU and Stanford, social media accounts for 40% of the traffic to 65 of the most popular fake news sites. In addition, 25% of all voting-age adults visited a fake news site before the 2016 election.
Knowledge is Power
I want to point out that visiting a site doesn’t mean you have the same beliefs as its creator. In “Knowledge Does Not Protect Against Illusory Truth”, they explore the illusory truth effect, the idea that “repeated statements receive higher truth ratings than new statements.” In fact, and unsurprisingly, repetition is more effective in changing opinion the less knowledge someone has on the subject.
Another study conducted in 2017 by Yale echoed the same: more people believed in fake news the more they were bombarded with it. The constant is a steady, spaced repetition of fake news.
Centralized Power
Facebook’s algorithms, while not innately problematic, still amplify inaccurate info, igniting the user’s preexisting biases. It still influences users, even if they only read the headline. This has the potential to sway those who may be undecided in politics. You begin to see how someone can fabricate a story and, with a bit of persistence, push whole communities to believe false information.
Facebook gained enough power in 2016 to influence the election. Their mission is to build community and make the world feel closer together. But, are they still building community if they helped Trump win? After reflecting on the last 4 years under a Trump presidency — from the continued injustice and lack of accountability for people in power to the lack of leadership during a pandemic resulting in 200,000+ lives lost. Should only a centralized, small group of people have power that changes our quality of life without our say?
Facebook still brings value to our lives, but is the trade-off worth it if the consequence is a Trump presidency? Are we going to believe that Facebook is still bringing the world closer together?
VR: The Already-Doomed Empathy Machine
As designers and developers, we need to rethink how we view technology. Often, we see it as a solution to solve nearly any problem. You can see this in “Oculus Whiffed,” where Inkoo Kang recounts how leaders in the virtual reality (VR) space project their expectations on VR. Chris Milk, founder and CEO of Within, a VR company, has mentioned that VR will be the “ultimate empathy machine.”
Soon after, a short VR documentary was released, called “After Solitary”, that recounted Kenny Moore’s story in solitary confinement in Maine State Prison. The goal of the documentary was to get the user to better empathize with Kenny. For 9 minutes, the user is taken around Moore’s room where he explains the various tasks he completes in a day.
After watching a 9-minute video, can you confidently say you know what it’s like to live in solitary confinement for several years? Probably not. To understand someone’s experience, you must first understand their past, present, and future, and that can’t be done in 9 minutes, 30 mins, or even 3 hours. How much time is enough?
No amount of technology will be enough to make someone empathetic. And if we must rely on technology to understand someone else, we have bigger problems in our society we must work through first.
At this point, we must ask ourselves: is VR the best solution to building empathy in our communities?
An Empathy Game for Empathetic People
Okay. Let’s say you successfully got someone to strap on a VR headset to watch a video that helps them empathize. How do you know the video changed their mind? If they’re willing to listen to another perspective, aren’t they already, inherently empathetic to begin with?
People who don’t care to empathize won’t be bothered with putting on a VR headset for an hour or two to consider different perspectives. Those people — how do we change their minds? Frankly, I find it hard to imagine that someone who doesn’t care about others is spending their own time and money to play a grow-your-own-empathy VR game. It’s wishful thinking. King says it best:
“The idea that spending 10 or 15 minutes in virtual reality can dramatically realign a viewer’s sympathies is a delusion.”
Even though VR has been marketed as this wonder machine, it’s probably not the best solution to build empathy and may have unforeseen consequences like Facebook in the 2016 election.
Technology isn’t always the best solution to our problems either. Our choices have real consequences that affect real people. When we practice techno-chauvinism, we’re limiting the solutions we can test our idea on. It’s like wearing blinders — we can see straight ahead, but can’t see all the routes to get there. When we haven’t fully tested all the repercussions of what our invention will have on society, we’re doing a great disservice to the world.
Redefining Innovation
So, if technology isn’t always the answer, what is? Enter decentralized storytelling, coined by Amelia Winger-Bearskin. Decentralized storytelling is defined as peer-to-peer storytelling networks that “emerge from the collective space of audience participation.” In other words, it’s the practice of making stories as accessible as possible for a community. Anyone can easily contribute to the story.
Since this type of storytelling is truly inclusive, it allows space for all perspectives and meets you where you are. There are no walls or barriers to join or contribute and, more importantly, each person gains something from it. Decentralized storytelling is used to spread information, nicely packaged in a memorable narrative.
Decentralized storytelling sounds new, but you’ve probably already come into contact with it. Take fan fiction for example — it can come in any form like articles, books, art, and movies. Decentralizing stories allows us to explore new mediums to tell the story too.
Everyone’s part of the story because everyone has control over it. They can add a new storyline to expand the narrative and deepen the ties. It’s truly inclusive in the sense that everyone can contribute because the same tools used to start the story are universal (think pen or paper).
Most importantly, decentralized storytelling is transparent. Winger-Bearskin argues that each community revolving around a decentralized story builds their economy, “collective spaces when people define what they value as a group.” These values dictate which extensions of the story are allowed to flourish.
For example, I’m a part of an online cooking group that shares recipes and tips through experience. Just like decentralized storytelling, we’re sharing helpful information wrapped in a story. The economic exchange begins when others in the group interact with my post — like, comment, share, etc.
Positive interactions reveal what the group values most. Each expansion of the narrative asks the group to reaccess what they value, an informal judging process. It’s community-based, completely reliant on the group to expand the story in a direction that serves everyone.
Decentralized Technologies
Decentralized storytelling offers us a canvas to better understand how we should frame our thinking and approach to technology. What other solutions have we explored, community-based, tech-based, or otherwise?
Many technologies we have today, like Facebook, have so much power that they can drastically change society in ways the public can’t control. How can we decentralize these technologies so they serve everyone, not just selective groups? How might we begin to decentralize our technology so it’s for the community, by the community so we can detect unforeseen consequences?
If decentralized storytelling isn’t contingent on one specific medium to tell a story, why must we rely on only one medium — technology — to solve all our problems? Instead of thinking of technology as the answer, we should be thinking of it as the question that gets us to the answer. From there, we can build a solution that truly solves the problem.
